REVISIT Does LE have enough evidence to Convict Casey on 1st Degree Murder?

[Friday]

The real key is whether or not the defense's explanation is reasonable.

IF CASEY IS ACQUITTED ON ALL CURRENT CHARGES, is there any way she then be re-charged and tried on the original child abuse/neglect charges?

TIA

 

[Wudge]

For the knitting theory:

I believe the defense has put forth a "reasonable" explanation for purchase of the knitting needles. However, the prosecution's point is also "reasonable"... however, based on the former jury instructions explained I could not support a guilty verdict based on this piece of evidence because both sides had a reasonable explanation.

Is that correct Wudge?

You are correct. For the key is that the wife had been a knitter from the age of seven onward, and it is reasonable for a knitter to buy knitting needles.

 

[OpenMind4U]

Yes, I would support that juror in their reasonable doubt vote. For even if the entire jury found that a dead (but not recovered) body was in the trunk of Casey's and decided that it was Caylee's body, that fact does not prove that her death was caused by murder, much less prove the State's contention that it was a premeditated murder. Therefore, given the State's charge of premeditated murder, I would find there was insufficient evidence to support the State's charge and vote "not guilty".

LOL...Thanks God that both of us are not in the same jury room! However, I do respect your opinion/position even that I'm not agree with you! And I would LOVE to discuss this with you further on...but it would take me pages and pages of typing......nothing better than human conversation, isn't?...

Thank you and have a nice day!!!!

 

[4oneluv]

Here is a site I just listen too where they say that we have not seen all the evidence why the Grand Jury convicted Casey. Obviousley they have more than what we seen according to this.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/crime/2008/10/28/pn.casey.anthony.trial.cnn?iref=videosearch

 

[Wudge]

IF CASEY IS ACQUITTED ON ALL CURRENT CHARGES, is there any way she then be re-charged and tried on the original child abuse/neglect charges?

TIA

That's a good question. I would recommend returning to this question once trial starts and the State's charges are firm and settled. For some people hope that the State can make a case for a lesser felony charge and prove that Casey died in a way related to this felony charge (other than premeditated murder). Their hope is that that would result in a felony murder verdict.

 

[TexasLil]

You are correct. For the key is that the wife had been a knitter from the age of seven onward, and it is reasonable for a knitter to buy knitting needles.

OK... thinking about evidence prosecution "could" present in Casey's trial...

If they found Casey purchased nail polish remover, the prosecution could assert she used this to make chloroform.

However, if the defense could prove Casey regularly did her own nails and used the polish remover for other reasons they have also presented a reasonable defense... correct?

But... if she purchased two or three bottles on a given day, would the defense's argument still be "reasonable"

 

[Wudge]

OK... thinking about evidence prosecution "could" present in Casey's trial...

If they found Casey purchased nail polish remover, the prosecution could assert she used this to make chloroform.

However, if the defense could prove Casey regularly did her own nails and used the polish remover for other reasons they have also presented a reasonable defense... correct?

But... if she purchased two or three bottles on a given day, would the defense's argument still be "reasonable"

A certain quantity of nail polish purchased could be a factor in a defense explanation (interpretation). However, I'm not of the mind that we know all about the alleged chloroform searches, including whether or not they took place before or after Casey disappeared.

Moreover, I would not be surprised to hear the defense put forth any number of reasonable explanations for the alleged chloroform search, including a possible intent to make a maggot killing or insect killing mixture.

Notice that I said "possible intent". As best I know, proof is not available to us that establishes Casey truly mixed up a batch of chloroform much less that Caylee inhaled any chloroform or died from doing so -- intended or otherwise.


(color me gone)

 

[TexasLil]

A certain quantity of nail polish purchased could be a factor in a defense explanation (interpretation). However, I'm not of the mind that we know all about the alleged chloroform searches, including whether or not they took place before or after Casey disappeared.

Moreover, I would not be surprised to hear the defense put forth any number of reasonable explanations for the alleged chloroform search, including a possible intent to make a maggot killing or insect killing mixture.

Notice that I said "possible intent". As best I know, proof is not available to us that establishes Casey truly mixed up a batch of chloroform much less that Caylee inhaled any chloroform or died from doing so -- intended or otherwise.


(color me gone)

I agree that more supporting evidence would be needed to present the polish remover theory. I'm just trying to get a better grip on the "reasonable" mark and just speculating what could be presented.

 

[kiki the parrot]

You see, everyone is asking for more information to get the WHOLE picture...I would be interested to know WHERE these knitting tools where usually stored. How accesable they were for the stranger to find/use them.......Again, you need to know the FULL case with other evidences, behaviors, prior history...all factors...JMHO...

Here is a site I just listen too where they say that we have not seen all the evidence why the Grand Jury convicted Casey. Obviousley they have more than what we seen according to this.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/crime/2008/10/28/pn.casey.anthony.trial.cnn?iref=videosearch

OK... thinking about evidence prosecution "could" present in Casey's trial...

If they found Casey purchased nail polish remover, the prosecution could assert she used this to make chloroform.

However, if the defense could prove Casey regularly did her own nails and used the polish remover for other reasons they have also presented a reasonable defense... correct?

But... if she purchased two or three bottles on a given day, would the defense's argument still be "reasonable"

N/k! We need the totality of evidence in KC's case just as we needed many more facts in knitting needle hypo--which is why I qualified, or prefaced my answer re hypo w "based on this evidence alone," and why I continue to reserve judgment and allow accidental vs premeditation re KC while awaiting the State of FL to reveal all they have. JMHO

 

[magnolia]

You see, everyone is asking for more information to get the WHOLE picture...I would be interested to know WHERE these knitting tools where usually stored. How accesable they were for the stranger to find/use them.......Again, you need to know the FULL case with other evidences, behaviors, prior history...all factors...JMHO...

Exactly! What appears reasonable may become unreasonable after hearing other evidence.

I would like to present another hypothetical with a few more details.

..........................
A guy sells his gun collection in 2002. He shows no interest in guns again until June of 2005, when he goes out and buys a pistol. In December, his wife is found shot to death with the same make and caliber pistol that he purchased in June.

The Defense provides evidence that in the past, the guy had an interest in guns. Prior to 2002, the guy collected guns.

A neighbor testifies he heard a gun shot and observed the guy run from the house holding the pistol.

A witness testifies that in early December, he saw the guy hit his wife and also heard him threaten her.
.....................

Should the Jury disregard the pistol purchase in June because the defense proved the guy had a prior interest in guns...or should they take the other testimony and circumstances into consideration before deciding to disregard?

 

[PaperDoll]

I know I posted this earlier but it's worth repeating. I think they have enough evidence to convict Casey. Heck, I don't think they even need a body, I believe that her lying to LE and the fact she didn't report this, and it wasn't even her who reported it, 30 days LATER... WTF??? :waitasec: What loving parent would do that? :behindbar

 

[kiki the parrot]

I know I posted this earlier but it's worth repeating. I think they have enough evidence to convict Casey. Heck, I don't think they even need a body, I believe that her lying to LE and the fact she didn't report this, and it wasn't even her who reported it, 30 days LATER... WTF??? :waitasec: What loving parent would do that? :behindbar

W/no body FL will need to have a few more cards up it's sleeve (like cause, and manner of death) to prove premeditaton. JMO

 

[Friday]

That's a good question. I would recommend returning to this question once trial starts and the State's charges are firm and settled. For some people hope that the State can make a case for a lesser felony charge and prove that Casey died in a way related to this felony charge (other than premeditated murder). Their hope is that that would result in a felony murder verdict.

Thanks, Wudge! I appreciate your time and insight. I think I fully understood all three of your sentences, but I'm ashamed to admit that I don't know if you actually answered my question.

Let me put it this way:

1) Assume that when the "State's charges are firm and settled," all of those charges accuse Casey of being responsibile in some way for Caylee's death whether by accident, neglect, intent, etc.

2) Assume that these next two sentences of yours don't work out for the prosecution. "Some people hope that the State can make a case for a lesser felony charge and prove that Casey died in a way related to this felony charge (other than premeditated murder). Their hope is that that would result in a felony murder verdict."

3) Assume that no matter how much the jury may detest her and suspect her of killing her daughter, the defense succeeded in making all the dna evidence re Caylee's death seem a little too "iffy" and so the jury cannot in good conscience convict Casey of any charge relating to a dead Caylee.

In the event of the above, could prosecutors then charge her with the original offenses regarding child neglect, child endangerment, etc. and try her for those things?

 

[Chilly Willy]

A certain quantity of nail polish purchased could be a factor in a defense explanation (interpretation). However, I'm not of the mind that we know all about the alleged chloroform searches, including whether or not they took place before or after Casey disappeared.

Moreover, I would not be surprised to hear the defense put forth any number of reasonable explanations for the alleged chloroform search, including a possible intent to make a maggot killing or insect killing mixture.

Notice that I said "possible intent". As best I know, proof is not available to us that establishes Casey truly mixed up a batch of chloroform much less that Caylee inhaled any chloroform or died from doing so -- intended or otherwise.


(color me gone)

If the defense puts forth 'any number' of reasonable explanations for the chloroform search, it would tell me as a juror that they have no REAL explanation and are simply throwing everything out there to see if some juror is dumb enough to bite. Give me one explanation and something to support that explanation and then I'll consider it to be 'reasonable'.

 

[TexasLil]

If the defense puts forth 'any number' of reasonable explanations for the chloroform search, it would tell me as a juror that they have no REAL explanation and are simply throwing everything out there to see if some juror is dumb enough to bite. Give me one explanation and something to support that explanation and then I'll consider it to be 'reasonable'.

I'm sure the defense will present the jury with a long list of products, insecticides, etc. that could contain chloroform but that will not explain the specific chloroform searches on the computer. IMO they will have little defense for that except to try and prove someone else could have been using Casey's computer.

 

[Chezhire]

When the prosecution puts a detective on the witness stand and asks: "what did the defendant tell you?", that question opens the cross-examination door to everything the defendant told them. That's not hearsay, and I know of no state that limits the use of tapes or transcripts for impeachment only.

A transcript or audio tape or video tape goes to the truth of what the defendant told the LEO or detective. An evaluation of the absolute truth of the answer is left to the finders-of-fact; i.e., the jurors.

HTH

ETA: Another poster noted that this technique was used to get Scott Peterson's story into the trial record. That is true. It's a very common technique when the defense is not sure that they wish to have their client testify.

Incorrect. I again point out that my earlier post was based upon the assumption that the opposing counsel MAKES the appropriate objection to the entire transcript being introduced into evidence. If you go reread my post, # 316 & 323, re: Article 801, it says "...unless the prosecution fails to object and/or the judge incorrectly rules upon said objection..." I am now presuming that counsel in Peterson's trial forgot to object, thus the evidence was admitted wihout any objection.

Tactically, an attorney should never intend rely upon his opponent making a mistake (in this case, failing to object) to carry his case for his client.

Actually, it IS hearsay. But, it falls into one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule, that one being "an admission by a party opponent".

That exception to the hearsay rule is only applicable if the party trying to use the taped interview is trying to use it against the opposing party as an admission by their opposing party. A party cannot rely upon that exception to introduce its own statements into evidence, as that usage would be for the sole purpose of proving the truth of the matters asserted - which is exactly what the rule was enacted to prohibit in the first place. Make sense?

Wudge was trying to suggest that a party defendant can simply introduce the entirety of that party defendant's taped interview into evidence while the investigating officer is testifying as a tactical move (in lieu of the party defendant testifying) to "get the defendant's story out before the jury without having to testify," which would be subject to a judicially sustainable hearsay objection.

In a trial, the use of a taped interview with the criminal defendant cannot be introduced into evidence by the criminal defendant as evidence (regardless of when the defense attorney tries to have it admitted during the trial) UNLESS the prosecution's witnesses mis-state or improperly recounts/quotes what the defendant said (which is what I said in my original posts, #316 & 323,) in which case the stateent is being used for impeachment purposes, which is typically allowable under the rules of evidence. Again, a FL legal eagle could probably clarify what exactly FL allows...

 

[Chilly Willy]

I'm sure the defense will present the jury with a long list of products, insecticides, etc. that could contain chloroform but that will not explain the specific chloroform searches on the computer. IMO they will have little defense for that except to try and prove someone else could have been using Casey's computer.

After the defense presents a reasonable explanation for Casey lying about Caylee being kidnapped, and after they present a reasonable explanation for why she didn't report her missing, and after they present a reasonable story about what actually happened to Casey - that's when I'll consider believing the insecticide story.

 

[TexasLil]

After the defense presents a reasonable explanation for Casey lying about Caylee being kidnapped, and after they present a reasonable explanation for why she didn't report her missing, and after they present a reasonable story about what actually happened to Casey - that's when I'll consider believing the insecticide story.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

 

[AZlawyer]

Incorrect. I again point out that my earlier post was based upon the assumption that the opposing counsel MAKES the appropriate objection to the entire transcript being introduced into evidence. If you go reread my post, # 323, re: Article 801, it says "...unless the prosecution fails to object and/or the judge incorrectly rules upon said objection..." I am now presuming that counsel in Peterson's trial forgot to object, thus the evidence was admitted wihout any objection.

Tactically, an attorney should never intend rely upon his opponent making a mistake (in this case, failing to object) to carry his case for his client.


That exception to the hearsay rule is only applicable if the party trying to use the taped interview is trying to use it against the opposing party as an admission by their opposing party. A party cannot rely upon that exception to introduce its own statements into evidence, as that usage would be for the sole purpose of proving the truth of the matters asserted - which is exactly what the rule was enacted to prohibit in the first place. Make sense?

Wudge was trying to suggest that a party defendant can simply introduce the entirety of that party defendant's taped interview into evidence while the investigating officer is testifying as a tactical move (in lieu of the party defendant testifying) to "get the defendant's story out before the jury without having to testify," which would be subject to a judicially sustainable hearsay objection.

In a trial, the use of a taped interview with the criminal defendant cannot be introduced into evidence by the criminal defendant as evidence (regardless of when the defense attorney tries to have it admitted during the trial) UNLESS the prosecution's witnesses mis-state or improperly recounts/quotes what the defendant said (which is what I said in my original post, #323,) in which case the stateent is being used for impeachment purposes, which is typically allowable under the rules of evidence.

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers". - (Henry VI (Pt. 2), Act IV, Scene II).

JK...obviously I have nothing against lawyers....

 

[Chezhire]

Counselor, party admissions are not hearsay. They are specifically deemed to be non-hearsay in FRE 801 (d)2.

HTH

Respectfully, and as already explained, this exception does not apply to the party declarant trying to introduce its own statements into evidence as proof of the matter asserted - which is exactly what the hearsay rule was designed to rpecelude from being introduced into evidence, and whish is what you've been suggesting.